The relevant article is “CRIME IN THE GREAT PYRAMID BY SCOTT CREIGHTON”, starting on page 42.
Please note the following caveat.
Some of you may have gained the impression from the hype that Creighton has found in the manuscript journal of R. W. H. Howard Vyse a veritable smoking gun — such as, an explicit declaration of intent to commit forgery, perhaps on these lines: “Monday, wash socks, Tuesday, forge inscriptions.” If that’s what you believe, you will most certainly be disappointed. If you are disappointed, please don’t ask me for your money back. I’m not recommending the article: I know it’s junk.
So what’s got Creighton all excited?
He’s found something on this page, the very same one he started on, on this board.
Let’s have a look at it ourselves. You’ll notice in the body of the text a cartouche name with following characters. To the right of the cartouche, fairly conspicuous as one of the more readable things on the page, is a note or caption: “in Campbell’s Chamber”
For quotes following, I claim fair use. This is a review and critique.
In Creighton’s article, this inline rendition of an inscription becomes Figure 2. Here’s what he says about it: “The second cartouche (Figure 2), also found by Vyse, is presented only in his handwritten journal (he didn’t publish this) and has clearly been found somewhere else since it is slightly different from the cartouche in the Great Pyramid; i.e., it has no horizontal lines in the small circle on the right. Had the cartouche in Figure 2 been copied from the cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber, then Vyse most surely would have copied the small lines into the plain circle that we observe in the circle of Figure 1. That he did not copy these lines tells us he did not observe such lines in the circle of this cartouche in Figure 2, which implies, of course, that the cartouche in Figure 2 is from a different source than the one in Campbell’s Chamber (Figure 1).”
That’s right, folks. Creighton has entirely missed the note or caption — “in Campbell’s Chamber” — which makes it perfectly clear that this is intended as a representation of the relevant inscription in Campbell’s Chamber. As for Vyse not publishing it, this is from Vyse’s book:
Now we move on to an enlarged view of the drawings at the bottom left corner of the page. Remember that Creighton has form for talking rot about these.
At bottom left we see a larger drawing of the cartouche of Khufu in Campbell’s Chamber — captioned “Cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber”. Above the cartouche, keyed by what looks like a prime, is a larger rendition of the initial character of the name. Above that is a smaller circle with some detail in it.
What does Creighton say about this?
“. . . we observe him having drawn a small circle with a dot in its center (Figure 4), the phonetic “Ra” sound and below this another small circle with three small horizontal strokes in its center, the phonetic “Kh” sound. It is as though Vyse, having found the Khufu text with a blank disc, is deliberating whether or not it should be drawn with hatched lines. We can even see that he has cross-referenced all these circles by placing a ‘1’ at top right of them.”
The detail in the smaller circle is not just a central dot. It looks to me like a misfire — a first attempt at an enlargement which went wrong — but please look and make up your own minds.
Here we have a very Sitchinesque exercise in which Creighton provides his own inaccurate drawing of what’s alleged to be there but isn’t.
“Eventually he decides and draws, at the bottom of the page in the left margin, a cartouche of Khufu complete with the two dots (mistakes) under the snake glyph and now with the three horizontal strokes in the, hitherto, blank disc. Below this he writes: “Cartouche in Campbell’s” [sic] (Figure 5) as if noting for himself what he had decided to place there.”
That’s right, folks. For Creighton, the phrase “Cartouche in Campbell’s [Chamber]” is pregnant with criminal intent. Is there anything in the material which warrants this reading? Or is it entirely an import, a product of the presuppositions and agenda which Creighton brought with him?
What about the other caption? I would render it “Cartouches in Tomb to the W. of Great Pyramid are ?different ?than Suphis” — as I explained to Creighton and others last year:
Applying Creighton’s hermeneutic to this caption (as consistency surely requires) would require us to add it to Vyse’s conjectured forgery to-do list — which would be easier, were it not quite evidently a statement about already existing cartouches. So much for Creighton’s hermeneutic.
We see here a development in which even Vyse’s private journal needs to be interpreted into evidence of forgery by the forgery theorist. Well, no, sorry, Creighton, if you can’t come up with better than this, even with access to the private material, you’ve shot your bolt.